GM CEO Mary Barra has spoken. The Chevrolet Bolt is certainly not a compliance car and she vows to prove that in the near future.

Barra spoke at a recent energy conference in Houston, sharing that the automaker is pushing for expansion of the federal EV tax credit with plans to ramp up production of the Bolt EV. GM has sold nearly 170,000 credit-worthy vehicles thus far, so time is running out for people to take advantage of the tax incentive. Barra is also encouraging the energy industry to get onboard and help GM boost the existing network of 17,000 public charging stations nationwide. She shared:

Here’s a picture of what the Bolt Incomplete cargo may look like.

“The good news is that our generation has the ambition, the talent and the technology to create a world with zero crashes, zero emissions and zero congestion.

As more and more people recognize that we have the right range, understand that we have a charging infrastructure so they don’t think you’re going to be stranded, I think you’re going to see EV adoption continue.”

Barra also believes that there should be one nationwide set of fuel economy requirements. This would be in opposition to the current situation in which California and other CARB states have separate policies. She continued:

“What we do support in that review is the need for the government to have one set of requirements, with California part of that process. One common standard allows us to advance innovation for our customers today and tomorrow.”

According to the CEO, GM will accelerate Bolt production at its Orion, Michigan plant. Last year the automaker delivered 23,297 copies of the 238-mile compact hatchback in the U.S. There was no official indication of the level of ramp up, but as we recently reported, Chevrolet is now making a two-seat fleet version (Bolt Incomplete) of the vehicle, which should surely dial up deliveries.

+1
Its the EV1 all over again. They want one national standard… ya right. As long as its the weak standard. If the national standard was the California standard then they’d say California should have their own. Anything to weaken fuel economy standards and kill the EV mandate.

The issue is that the Feds undoubtedly plan to differ from what was previously agreed to, which would bring back two sets of requirements to meet. But I have no doubt that the Feds also intend to just try to attack the CARB waiver at the same time.

Since California is more than 50% of the US market for ZEVs logically the Feds should yield and follow our lead. It makes no sense for the tail to wag the dog. She could be telling the feds to get in line and they will.

Seriously? Neither GM nor its dealers want to sell plug-in EVs. Their whole business model, including dealers selling lots of service and replacement parts, depends on selling gasmobiles.

GM would very much like to see an end to the CARB standards, as well as an end to nationwide emission standards. GM is definitely not ready for the EV revolution. But then, neither are most of the other legacy gasmobile makers.

Interviewer: “So what is the car of the future? You said it os all electric, but will it have a little gas engine just in case?”

Mary Barra: “We See an all electric future. So, we have the Volt that does have both, but looking forward we see pure electric vehicles.”

Me too 😉 Although our Volt is still a fantastic car that might as well be all electric… our Bolt is now our primary… and hopefully a Model 3 is on the way soon so our Volt can convert a new household to electric! heh

Not all that found of CNBC in general and this interview in particular. The banner at the bottom of the screen said increased production of the VOLT where MS. Barra meant the BOLT ev.

Mary will evade answers if the interviewer is unprepared, as this guy was.

I want to know if the ICE-less ‘electrified vehicles’ are BEV’s or Fuel cells.

Fuel Cells currently have such a small footprint that I just can’t believe GM would go whole hog into them.

She made a few good points, such as public infrastructure right now has 17,000 docking stations. So worry about public charging is a bit over-blown….. And I live in an area where there are a dearth of them.

Bolt front A pillar cave in to obstruct driver’s view too much! Sorry Chevy, until you move the EV drive to a Buick Encore, not going to look at it! You have wasted so much time screwing around get to get passby with CARB credit! No thanks! A tiny car like this costing 37K?

they can’t afford to sell the vehicle at its current price to such an extent that it satiates demand. in the same way tesla can’t afford to sell a model 3 for less than $42k according to the exact same firm and pretty much confirmed by both CEOs.

You can buy a base Bolt for $32k just about anywhere. With the credit that is just $24.5k. Chevy always puts their MSRP up too high and then expects the buyer to deal to get the real price. Problem is that many electric car buyers don’t know this and don’t even try out the Bolt because of its stupid MSRP.

They have demand for the Ampera-e at a price that isn’t profitable. Tariffs on US imports of cars make the real price too high. Yup, it’s not just Trump that enacts Tariffs and these have been around for a while.

Additionally, Opel is no longer GM. So it makes no sense for them to sell a car at a loss to a competitor. Up the price tonporperly reflect the cost to import them and sell them, sure. They did that and then everyone cried foul.

It’s a midsize car interior, with 200hp. And after current incentives can be had for less than $30k. Have seen dealer listings before EV incentives for about $32k. So after the $7500 fed rebate that’s $24,500 putting it near price for similar ICE cars.

Volt owner here. Part of the problem is the Bolt’s arrangement. It has lots of cabin space, quite roomy. But little trunk space, quite short. I don’t know why they made the vehicle so short. Mainly I have a Volt and not a Bolt for three reasons:

* Can’t get my medium sized dog in the back of a Bolt
* Seat belts in the Bolt are recessed instead of erect like the Volt, so a giant backpain hassle for booster seats for the kids.

But most importantly:
* Availability — the Bolt was wait-listed for almost a year here in Ontario.

Volt, despite having less cargo capacity by specs, has far more space. Grab some luggage, gym bags, and compare for yourself (I did!).

Consider these numbers:

Volt is 180″ long.
Bolt is 164″ long.

I firmly believe they designed towards a specific RANGE at a specific PRICE. To hit their targets, they sacrificed size.

I have an engineering degree and understand why they had to do this, but going forward, I hope they can push the size as much as possible. We need some real midsize EVs that are affordably. I just bought an Acadia Denali, and while it’s a very nice vehicle, would have rather put that $45,000 or so into an EV.

Tiny car? Only on the outside. You should check one out, it’s quite a package.

Wasting time? GM has offered the perfect bridge EV since 2011: a Volt. Use it in EV mode as a daily driver and rely on the range extender for long trips. Then they beat everyone else to the market on an affordable long range EV.

Front A pillar? No reviewer has complained about it, not even CR which normally love to nitpick American cars to death.

Buick Encore? Hell no! The Bolt is a fun to drive hot hatch that can stand toe to toe with a GTI. The Encore is a geezer car that handles like a road barge.

Chevy has served up the best EV this side of $56K. They’ve beaten Tesla at their own game and it’s not hard to find owners of both Teslas and Bolts who prefer their Bolts (Steve Wozniak, even a commenter here a few days ago).

The limiting factor is batteries. Once the new LG Chem battery factory is online GM could flip a switch at Orion and easily double their capacity. Unlike Tesla, they actually know how to run an assembly line.

Well, so far Model 3 sales haven’t *quite* reached the height of Bolt production and sales from Q4 last year. Don’t forget that the Bolt was also selling well in Canada. (In addition to small allocations to Mexico)

But it is inevitable that Tesla will outpace the Bolt. And they are getting very close to breaking 3,000 a month sales.

March should be the month when Tesla finally eclipses GM in the number of lifetime EV sales in the US. 🙂

Tesla Model 3 is at a higher production rate than the Bolt. GM doesn’t just go, okay lets shut off our lines for the winter and come back another time. GM produces the Bolts like all manufacturers at at an amount per week.

But unlike Tesla who has customers to deliver to, the Bolt is dependent on dealers stocking supply. The sales amounts simply align with when cars are stocked and sold by the dealers. But that is independent of the production rate.

What were Bolt production numbers for Q4 2017? Given how badly Nov/Dec sales decimated inventory, I don’t believe they ramped production to meet sales. They still haven’t dug their way out of it from what I’m seeing on cars.com. Barely 3,000 units being advertised on cars.com.

HGTZ and Dominick were keeping track last winter in the forums. I don’t have any numbers prior to Oct 24, but here is US inventory through the end of December. The only big drop was in late oct / early november:

Early October inventory was also in the mid-4,000 but I do not have an exact number.

US Sales:
Oct 2,781
Nov 2,987
Dec 3,227

Canada Sales:
371
350
109

Total North American Sales Q4: 9825
North American Sales averaged: 3,275/month Q4

Plus some vehicles went to Mexico and Europe but they were negligible numbers.

September sales were similar to October at 2,632 units in the US and 227 in Canada.

Inventory only dropped 1,500 over the course of late October through the end of the year. But in order to maintain that level of inventory I have to think that somewhere between 2,750-3,000 were produced / month between October and December. Just estimating: I subtracted 1500 from 9825 to get 8325. Dividing that by 3, it seems like they were producing enough to refill 2,775 units in inventory between October and December.

For the Bolt that currently has access to the tax credit, yes that is the normal cycle.

For the Model 3 it is not going to be. There are already 400,000 + reservations, the majority of which should turn into actual orders. So as soon as Tesla builds them, they should be out the door no matter what time of year.

And once the tax credit goes away for GM their sales should even out some over the course of the year. There shouldn’t be as much of a “fall” in the spring and “spring” in the fall. 😉

However, I’m definitely not convinced that fleet sales are anything new, or that most of the increase in sales will come from fleet sales. Someone commented just today to another article that GM is already doing fleet sales for the Bolt EV. That shouldn’t be a surprise for anyone, as fleet sales are an important part of most auto makers’ sales.

Seems to me the most important consideration is for GM to bring down the unit price, so the car can be profitably sold in Canada and overseas. There is already a lot of unmet demand for the car in Canada and S. Korea, and the only reason I can see that GM is limiting sales there is because the model likely doesn’t make a profit when sold outside the USA.

Of course, simply ramping up production should help make the model more profitable, as increased volume should drop the unit cost.

If GM can sell every Bolt they can make in the US, why sell abroad? That’s more expensive. Shipping, regulatory, etc. I believe GM will cautiously ramp production in response to real demand. Eventually that will include foreign markets. It’s the same strategy Tesla employed with the S and X.

A lot will go to the US. But they’ve also already pledged 5,000 to South Korea this year.

And the Canadian response has been fantastic. Bolt EV is right behind the Volt as #1 and #2 EV in Canada. The Volt and Bolt are selling at the same rate as most of Chevy’s other passenger cars and SUVs in Canada. I’ll bet a significant portion goes there.

They never made money in Europe, and had no prospects of doing so. Admirably, the Europeans know that it’s foolish to buy cars from a foreign company, even if they produce the cars locally. It’s too bad most Americans aren’t that bright.

Anyway, yes, GM should exit any market where they have no chance of making a profit. That’s just good business.

Actually, my mom owns a small Opel Corsa. It’s a well respected brand with lots of cars out there. I don’t know why they couldn’t make a profit. It certainly wasn’t because we evil Europeans refused to buy American (All European except in ownership really) cars

“I believe GM will cautiously ramp production in response to real demand. Eventually that will include foreign markets. It’s the same strategy Tesla employed with the S and X.”

Not the same strategy at all. Tesla actually sells the Model S and Model X in Europe in significant numbers, and makes a healthy gross profit margin on those sales.

Contrariwise, GM has consigned European sales of the Bolt EV to Opel, which is no longer a division of GM. GM is is allowing sales to languish with a price much too high to be competitive, and dealerships which would rather not sell the car.

This is really too bad, because the hatchback style of the Bolt EV is a much better fit for what Europeans want than what Americans want. GM is allowing sales to languish in the region where it should sell the best. 🙁

GM really needs to launch a new brand to sell plug-in EVs in Europe. GM brands have been stigmatized in Europe because of the low quality of American made cars from the 70s, so they do need a new or different badge.

Maybe they could revive the Duesenberg badge, so people could once again say “It’s a Doozy!” 🙂

Increased production also will likely mean lowering sell price so inventory doesn’t get excessive. You don’t produce vehicles you can’t sell and the Bolt’s sweet spot for price will have to go down to compete with the new Leaf.

I dunno; one of the InsideEVs staff (was it Jay Cole?) said in a comment (not a recent one) that Samsung and LG Chem were in a bit of a price war on battery cells. So it’s possible GM is already paying less for Bolt EV batteries than the reported $145/kWh. That’s a cell price, not a pack-level price.

But if it wasn’t for that one comment, I would think that LG Chem would have no incentive at all to lower its prices, given that their list of customers appears to be growing faster than their supply!

But LG Electronics is supplying GM with the entire EV powertrain for the Bolt EV, not just the battery cells. So if GM increases production, they should expect a lower unit cost for those EV powertrains. Higher volume should yield lower unit cost, altho of course that’s just a generality and isn’t always true.

The real question in my mind is lead time. When LG Chem was putting its new, lower-cost li-ion batteries into production, they were taking orders for delivery in quantity two years in advance. Is LG still requiring that long a lead time for orders? Would GM have to wait two years for any significant increase in production? It looks to me like LG is waiting until it has orders in hand before it builds out increased battery production capacity. If that’s true, then yes GM will have to wait two years after negotiating a higher volume of battery cells from LG Chem, before it can significantly crank up production of the Bolt EV.

InsideEVs’ Jay Cole had this to say on that subject:

“There is no battery supplier that will let a company make a set order, then guarantee 2X expansion of that order over the short term/‘just in time’ model if that OEM finds unexpected demand. Especially not LG Chem, who is first to market with inexpensive/2nd gen batteries and currently has ~21 different OEM contracts. They would of course say they will do their best to oblige as best they can, but that would be it… there is no leverage.” — Jay Cole, comment at InsideEVs.com, May 30, 2017

“the automaker is pushing for expansion of the federal EV tax credit with plans to ramp up production of the Bolt EV”
In other words, instead of spending their money on building more EV’s, they are going to spend it on lobbying congress. 🙁

No it isn’t! The current tax credit structure is 200k per manufacturer plus 2 quarters of unlimited period followed by the tax credit shrinking each quarter which is also unlimited.

So it isn’t first come first serve. The manufacturers who were early to the game are limited by battery outputs and market maturity. So during the full unlimited period at best they would be able to move 100k cars. Manufacturers who waited and did nothing until others opened up the market for them will be able to output MILLIONS of cars during that period. This is especially so since the tax credit will help them undercut the price of their competition who did all the work.

Although I like Chevy Bolt, and it can do much better in non US markets, if there is enough supply, it is not as sexy as a Tesla model 3. So until people understand that there will be no $35k Tesla, or GM drop the price significantly, I don’t think US sales will improve much.

It is not an advantage per se. Tesla sells cars at very low margins or at a loss, so you get more for your money. As long as they continue with this practice, other automakers cannot and will not compete with them.

Pushmi-Pullyu has mentioned in the past that LG-Chem makes contracts essentially 2 years in advance. I do not recall where he referenced this info from, but perhaps he can fill us in?

I don’t know if they make it in accordance to model year, calendar year, or just 12 month time frames… but either way, this fall will be 2 years since the Bolt first began production.

It is entirely possible that they made an agreement to increase battery production in 2018 for the 2019 MY Bolt if certain conditions were met.

After all, GM has already announced 2 more EVs are on the horizon (Buick/Cadillac) and they will be launching within a year.

So clearly they planned to have an EV push for 2018 / 2019. Increased Bolt production would have been part of that plan. Especially with them hitting 200,000 sales around October. They knew that Bolt/Volt demand will probably skyrocket at the end of this year.

Based on the leaked report by GM about LG battery prices, we saw a price change starting in 2020 and another in 2022. So it is more likely that is when the contract with LG hits phase 2 in 2020 and phase 3 in 2022.

Looking at the report you cited it says on it:
“New CUV entries
two entries by 2020”

and

“ALL NEW PLATFORM LAUNCHES IN 2021”

So based on all the evidence it seems likely that they will be limited to 30k till 2020 and in 2020 they launch 2 new CUVs based on the bolt platform. Then in 2021 they finish the new platform for use in 2022 during the 3rd phase.

“In the next 18 months, GM will introduce two new all-electric vehicles based off learnings from the Chevrolet Bolt EV. They will be the first of at least 20 new all-electric vehicles that will launch by 2023.”

Whatever these 2 EVs are, we haven’t seen them yet so we should see what both are within the next 12 months at the latest.

But personally, I think they’ll both be announced this year with one launched at the end of 2018 and one launched in 2019. No guarantees of this, just my expectations. 🙂

The reason I think so? Unlike the Bolt that was an entirely new platform and new type of vehicle, the Buick EV is going to be an upscale version of the Bolt. Similar to the Chevy Trax and Buick Encore. There is no need for a 2 year lull between announcement and launch.

Also, post-2020 the focus will be on the new platform. Why launch 2 new Bolt-based EVs less than a year before launching a series of brand new EVs using this new EV tech that will be cheaper to build and longer range? Get it out before the end of 2019 to give them at least a few years of life.

It seems that every time this conversation comes up, people are unaware of or have forgotten that LG is building a plant in Michigan for batteries, electric motors, and components for the sole purpose of increasing GM EV volume at a low cost structure. And this plant is due to come online coincidentally Fall 18 (this year). Way cheaper than importing battery packs from Korea I presume.

If they are able to get this plant online in Q3, GM will be set to maximize the last half of 2018 because that’s when the 200,000 mark hits as well as end of year uptick.

The only plant that is coming online is for components, not for batteries. There was a battery expansion but GM has confirmed that it wasn’t for them.

And considering the factory at max size was only 3gwh, that would only be enough for 50k cars. If we subtract 30k from the bolt and some for the volt and the rest is for the other customer.(Ford? Chrysler?)

Found an inside EV article from 2 years ago where GM’s chief of battery operations is quoted as saying “the “unnamed customer” for the 4th battery production line is “distinctly separate” from the Bolt.”

That’s not quite saying it isn’t for GM. Just that it isn’t for the Bolt. Could be their new CUV.

“How come I have a bad feeling when she says ramping up production, she means from 26k a year to 30k per year…”

Yeah, what happened to the plan to make 30k+ Bolt EVs in the first year of production? Last year an LG Chem spokesman said GM planned to make a bit over 30k the first year, or words to that effect. If GM actually made only “23,297 copies”, as this article states, then that’s quite a bit short.

Is it possible that the “23,297 copies” refers only to U.S. sales, not global sales?

Yes, these numbers refer to only US sales. That is the exact number of Bolt EVs sold in 2017 in the US. About 2 months ago I compiled the number of Bolts sold by country and the remaining Bolts in inventory.

Over 31,000 Bolts/Ampera-e were produced between December 2017 and December 2018. I have the sources listed for the data as well:

Yes, I am expecting exactly that. That is their job; to anticipate increased demand for electricity, and to supply it where needed.

They certainly did ramp up electric supply back in the 1960s and 1970s, when everybody was installing central air conditioning in commercial buildings and homes for the first time. Electric utilities are already planning ahead for more and more EV charging; why wouldn’t they? It’s their business to anticipate increases in demand for electricity.

Even as far back as 1960, Electric Utilities have been throttling back plans for increased usage since it NEVER transpired.

In the 1970’s and 1980’s Three Mile Island killed the majority of plans for Nukes (we currently have much fewer than HALF of what was planned), but the majority of the reason was that the NEED never developed.

In my own area the Sommerset (OLCOTT) 700 odd megawatt coal fired plant was SUPPOSED to have originally been a dual reactor 2400 megwatt Nuclear Station, but this was cancelled early on due to the lack of current and projected sales.

Likewise, for the foreseeable future, there will be almost no need for more utility growth. More efficient Air conditioning, and the effective banning of incandescent light bulbs in the states save much more electricity than electric cars use.

I’ve been reading that the ’18 Bolt run may only produce for a couple of months, so they can jump forward to the ’19s all together. A few small changes to the Bolt, the new Buick, and a little updating for the Volt. All coming later this year I believe.

We, Europeans, don’t care anymore. GM is no longer present in Europe and when it was, AmperaEs were almost impossible to buy.
Now, with Hyundai KonaEV coming to Europe this summer, no one cares about AmperaE anymore.

Almost impossible to buy could be used to describe a lot of cars, the Hyundai Ioniq being one of them. The only reasonable EV you can buy in Europe is the Leaf. No matter how you slice it. Is it perfect? Hell no.

There’s really not much to say about the Bolt, it’s production rates, or what Mary B would like to see happen.
GM is just trying to stay relevant as they slip into irrelevancy.
Produce an electric truck if you’re really committed to evs, create a charging network, and quit whining to the government, for starters.
If there is such demand for the Bolt then why production down tremendously?

20 evs in the next 5 years, right. That’ll be the day. Though I do support GM’s request to extend the ev credit, I think that’s a voice crying in the wilderness.

Seriously? I actually like Tesla’s cars, and will consider them if/when they improve build quality, reliability, and self-serviceability.

I do find it funny how some of the Tesla zealots fail to understand the sheer production capacity of the real car manufacturers. They dwarf Tesla in every way. They could flood the market with EVs if they wanted to. But, they have to consider profitability, unlike Tesla who gets a continuous free pass. So, they’re doing a slow ramp-up.

Tesla is profitable on making cars, their financial statements prove that. What they lose money on is growth and R&D which is much higher than other manufacturers as % of revenue.

And no, the other manufacturers can’t dwarf Tesla in production. Simply based on lack of high energy density batteries. They are tied down by the battery manufacturers.

That said even for producing cars its not that simple. Because EVs have to be produced from scratch to take the most advantage of them being an EV. This is why when the Germans took apart the Model 3, they were shocked at how far ahead of them Tesla was.

Tesla is not profitable making cars. They are profitable if you don’t consider the cost of tooling, developing future models, debt servicing etc. But that is not the way to have a sustainable business. If they don’t spend on future models, they will become irrelevant quickly. If you consider the entire life cycle of Model S, I don’t think it has been a profitable model.

Tesla is most definitely profitable on making cars. If they lowered their growth rate and/or set their R&D to the same % of revenue as other manufacturers they would show a net profit. But there is no point in doing that because Tesla wants to grow to be as big as the other manufacturers.

Not to mention since Tesla does not have a dealership network, they can only claim income when the car is delivered to the consumer while other manufacturers claim income pretty much moment it is made. This wouldn’t be as big of a problem if Tesla was not growing much, but their own growth is hampering their financials (but this has no impact on real life, just on balance sheets)

I don’t believe that is the case. Their gross margins on Model S/X are too low to make them a profitable business. Other carmakers pushing 40% gross margins on their luxury models. If Tesla can achieve around 40% on Model S/ZX and 25% on Model 3, then I would consider them a profitable company.

Yes, the real auto manufacturers do dwarf Tesla. They could also spin up their own battery lines if they chose to.

This is the thing people don’t get: Tesla exists because the real automakers haven’t yet put serious effort into EVs. If they do so before Tesla is self-sufficient, they’ll destroy Tesla. The clock is ticking because the big boys are starting to wake up and get in the game for real.

Tesla is most definitely profitable, just look at their healthy gross margin. Again what they lose out on is on growth and large % of revenue on R&D.

The other manufacturers don’t have battery lines. They buy from 3rd parties like LG who already has trouble getting up their lines due to it not being simple. LG’s approach requires completely different tooling that ones used to normally make batteries and building these tooling is time consuming and expensive.

The fact of the matter is Tesla is building up the capacity to be a fairly large volume manufacturer of compelling, mid-high end PEVs AND is diversifying into lucrative businesses like battery storage and high-end solar PV, electrified truck manufacturing, etc.

Getting these pieces in place are costly but should pay off with profits in the near future and very large profits as they further drive down their costs build their capacity.

Unit profitability doesn’t matter. Overall corporate profitability does matter. Tesla does make unit profit on the S/X, and high-optioned versions of the 3. But, they aren’t a profitable organization and won’t be any time soon.

Tesla doesn’t have a battery line. Panasonic does.

The important fact is that Tesla couldn’t afford to build a battery line even if they wanted to. But, the big boys could easily do it. Tesla is poking the bear. If it wakes, they’ll get eaten.

Overall company profitability is all that matters to the money people. They have some patience, but it’s not infinite. And their opinion is the only one that really matters.

A business that sells tons of items at a profit, but loses money overall can be described in one way: failing.

LG is building drive trains and batteries to GM’s specs. The face remains, neither Tesla nor GM owns a battery production line. The difference is GM has the resources to build one if they deemed it necessary.

No, corporate profitability is actually totally irrelevant. The only thing that matters is gross profit and free cashflow. As long as you have that you can run a company indefinitely. The only reason you want to show net profit is to make wallstreet happy, but as long as wallstreet sees growth, they are happy. Net profit only matters to dividend investors, not growth investors. (Dividend investors get 4% returns, growth investors get 400% returns)

Tesla does have a battery line, they build the batteries together with Panasonic. The technology is co-developed by both companies. In same way Nissan and NEC. In comparison, GM has no such closeness to LG, the batteries are 100% LG technology.

Yeah, sure the big boys with not battery experience can somehow produce more batteries than Panasonic, the largest battery manufacturer in the world! Let me guess, if the big boys wake up, they’ll outperform navy seals in war tactics, they’ll build better airplanes than boeing and airbus, manufacturer better phones than Apple and Samsung. Build better search engine than Google. Their executives will even beat Chuck Norris with 1 finger

All the corporations in the world exist today only because the auto manufacturers have not woken up, and when they wake up, all the companies in the world will get eaten. Right?

“Tesla isn’t profitable, and has no clear path to becoming profitable.”

What nonsense is this? Tesla certainly would be making a net profit if it concentrated on that rather than plowing all its profits back into growing the business.

“This is the thing people don’t get: Tesla exists because the real automakers haven’t yet put serious effort into EVs. If they do so before Tesla is self-sufficient, they’ll destroy Tesla.”

You are ignoring the lessons of history, very hard.

The legacy auto makers are like the Titanic headed for a very large iceberg labeled “The EV revolution”. Some of them will manage to turn in time, and others will not. This is what happens in every disruptive tech revolution. The dustbin of history is filled with former market leaders which could not adapt to a tech revolution. A couple of examples: The Stanley Motor Carriage Co., maker of the formerly best-selling Stanley Steamer automobile; and more recently, Eastman Kodak.

“The clock is ticking because the big boys are starting to wake up and get in the game for real.”

Unlike Tesla. they don’t seem to be in any hurry to do so.

“Until we see Audi, Mercedes, VW, Toyota, GM, Ford deliver a BEV that similarly dusts their own top-of-line ICE product in performance AND value for money, there will be no effective BEV competition for Tesla. And this isn’t going to happen for a LONG time, not for technical reasons, but because ICE carmakers cannot remain viable companies if they start killing off their highest margin products. The ICE carmakers will put batteries into version of their products for the customers who ask for ‘the electric one’. They will build low-end, compliance BEVs to earn the ZEV credits they need without cannibalizing their high-end ICEs. They will build hybrids and PHEVs to get their CAFE and CO2 g/km numbers. But they aren’t going to deliberately kill off their top profit making products just to compete with Tesla — at least not until Tesla gets a whole lot bigger than they are now.” — Randy Carlson

Given the current hostility in Washington to anything related to EV development, I don’t see the tax credit being extended or the government playing any role in facilitating a fast charging national infrastructure. That does not bode well for a company planning to roll out 20 new electric vehicles in the next 5 years.

I have yet to see signs that GM is committed to offering their EV customers charging solutions that increase the practical range of their EVs. The question is whether they want to make that happen. They seem to be waiting for others to assume a leadership role.

I don’t see her commitment to charging infrastructure … or is this what it was meant to mean?? …

“As more and more people recognize that we have the right range, understand that we have a charging infrastructure so they don’t think you’re going to be stranded, I think you’re going to see EV adoption continue.”

Don’t expect an upgrade to faster L2 charging as long as the battery can be charged overnight. Currently it charges in about 9.3 h.

So if the rumored 80 KWh battery were an option in 2019 then L2 would be jacked to 9.6 KW. Note: 80 KWh battery rumor is hor$e$hit. More likely is a boost from 57 to about 62 KWh as a result in tweaks to cell chemistry and design.

-The production increase is planned for the improved 2019 Bolt EV.
-2019 Bolt EV will debute in spring or early summer.
-The new model will have more battery capacity and a more efficient motor. ACC is planned and Super Cruise may possibly be an option.

A rear motor is probably destined for GM’s next rumored CUV EV based on the Bolt platform. The Bolt was developed with the possibilty but It’s very unlikely GM want to push an optioned-out Bolt over $50K since it doesn’t look like a high end car.

There will be a Buick model based on Bolt. I think they will keep the premium features (AWD, Super cruise) for that model, or possibly a Cadillac version. The Bolt could get a price cut, in my opinion.

The Buick is all but confirmed, but AWD, I wouldn’t bet on it. GM are focused on driving down EV costs. They learned the wrong lesson from the Caddy ELR disaster so they’ll stay away from high end EVs until the 2nd gen modular BEV platform debutes in the early 20s.